I'm still looking for a tangible villain. Given the mechanical inevitability of default for Greece (barring a deus-ex-machina from the ECB, which I think we can agree is not on the cards), the smart money is presumably gaming the ECB's stupidity for all it's worth.

The most obvious way of doing this is by buying CDS.

Therefore, anyone taking a major bet on Greek default, through a CDS position, may wish to influence outcomes by blocking off all alternatives to full payment (impossible) or default (jackpot).

Ratings agencies which declare "anything which is different from full payment (e.g. voluntary rollover) is equivalent to default" would seem to fit with such a strategy.

The head of a ratings agency who secretly held a massive CDS position might make a satisfying villain.

Just thinking out loud here.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

in a default scenario. If I have understood correctly, they are US banks, who must somehow trust implicitly that the ECB will not allow default. Or that the US government or Fed will not allow the ECB to allow default?

My head hurts.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

They are not the suckers. They are collecting CDS premia (16% annual rate on Greek CDS right now) without being capitalised for paying out and everyone is doing their best that there isn't a default so they don't have to pay.

If you sell insurance with no intention of paying out, is that not fraudulent?

so if they have any overt or covert influence to exercise over events in my ficticious world, it will be working against the interests of my hypothetical speculator/credit rater. They would NOT want "voluntary" bond rollover to trigger a credit event.

This is all a matter of parasitical side-bets on the main events of Euro liquidity/solvency matters, but the stakes are high.

It could all get quite violent.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

Writing a crime novel is easy, comparatively speaking. But I would prefer that it were plausible and didactic in nature.

It's a variation on the old "insure and burn" scam. No, it's actually more like match-fixing : placing bets on outcomes, and reducing the uncertainties.

I would prefer if I could identify actors who stand to gain from the Euro crisis itself, rather than CDS side-bets, and who might therefore wish to influence outcomes. But I haven't identified anyone yet : it looks like a lose-lose-lose situation, a seriously negative-sum game.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II

I would prefer if I could identify actors who stand to gain from the Euro crisis itself, rather than CDS side-bets, and who might therefore wish to influence outcomes. But I haven't identified anyone yet : it looks like a lose-lose-lose situation, a seriously negative-sum game.

In terms of money? Certainly.

In terms of goods and resources? Absolutely.

In terms of power? No. Power over others is a zero-sum game.

But of course this is a case where reality is unrealistic. It is hard to make a character in a book motivated by power over other people without having him become a caricature sociopath.